Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-07-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'll quote the relevant passages from the account of the conspiracy of Piso which happened the year after the Fire of Rome.

Tacitus/annals.xv

Quote:

In long succession, troops of prisoners in chains were dragged along and stood at the gates of his gardens. When they entered to plead their cause, a smile of joy on any of the conspirators, a casual conversation, a sudden meeting, or the fact of having entered a banquet or a public show in company, was construed into a crime

This indicates that by the time of Piso's conspiracy these gardens have ceased to be normally open to the public.

So do you think this Nero would have waited a year to find scapegoats to stifle the voices?

The martyrdoms are supposedly a direct result of the failure of propitiations and all other efforts to get past the upshot of the fire.

The structure of Tacitus's analysis of the fire is clear enough. After describing the fire he goes through the results and outcomes, then finished the narrative with an evaluation. Despite being later, those results are are all placed before that evaluation, so as to provide impact for the evaluation. Against that structure and apparently out of sequence, there is an add-on after the evaluation about christian martyrdoms. As they come after the evaluation the martyrdoms don't fit into the category of the pre-placed outcomes, so one doesn't get any idea from the text of the martyrdoms happening long after the fire is over.

spin

jgreen44 · 12-07-2010, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Don't you do any research at all? Marcion's Son of God could not be crucified. It had NO FLESH. IT could NOT BE FASTENED to a cross.

Yes the Marcions believed Jesus didn't have a flesh and blood body. But they also believed that he appeared to be flesh and blood and appeared to be crucified, so anybody around him wouldn't have known the difference.

aa5874 · 12-08-2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Don't you do any research at all? Marcion's Son of God could not be crucified. It had NO FLESH. IT could NOT BE FASTENED to a cross.

Yes the Marcions believed Jesus didn't have a flesh and blood body. But they also believed that he appeared to be flesh and blood and appeared to be crucified, so anybody around him wouldn't have known the difference.

You are NOT even following the written information from antiquity from Justin Martyr.

Marcion did NOT believe in NT Jesus.

MARCION PREACHED ANOTHER GOD and ANOTHER SON.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD DID NOT NEED ISAIAH 7.14

MARCION'S SON OF GOD was NOT in Hebrew Scripture.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD WAS NOT ON TRIAL before the SANHEDRIN.

MARCION'S SON of GOD was not CRUCIFIED.

Marcion's SON OF GOD HAD NO FLESH it could NOT SUFFER.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD did NOT DIE.

MARCION'S SON OF GOD was NOT RESURRECTED on the third day.

Look again at "First Apology" LVIII

Quote:

...And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...

Do you see where Justin stated that the DEVILS put forward Marcion and that he was PREACHING another God and likewise another Son.

This is "On the Flesh of Christ" 1

Quote:

...Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity...

"On the Flesh of Christ"

Quote:

....But Marcion will apply the knife to this doctrine also, and even with greater reason.

For which is more unworthy of God, which is more likely to raise a blush of shame, that God should be born, or that He should die? That He should bear the flesh, or the cross? Be circumcised, or be crucified? Be cradled, or be coffined? be laid in a manger, or in a tomb? Talk of " wisdom!"

You will show more of that if you refuse to believe this also.

But, after all, you will not be "wise" unless you become a "fool" to the world, by believing "the foolish things of God."

Have you, then, cut away all sufferings from Christ, on the ground that, as a mere phantom, He was incapable of experiencing them?

Marcion's son of God was a PHANTOM incapable of experiencing suffering, nailed to a cross or to have died, buried and resurrected.

Again once there was Roman and Jewish records that Jesus was a mere man then Marcion could SHOW that Jesus believers were worshiping a man as a God. The mere idea that Marcion proposed that his Son of God was a PHANTOM was because there was NO RECORDS of a man called Jesus with a human father and human mother who was publicly crucified.

In antiquity it was NOT believed a PHANTOM had blood, or human Flesh .

angelo · 12-08-2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Catholics on brothers

Quote:

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

...

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

...

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages could use either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of my uncle." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used "brother."

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

...

I don't think that the various possibilies of cousin or other male sort-of relative affect the argument for historicity.

Many people, including Earl Doherty and Arthur Drews, have pointed out that the term brother or brothers was regularly applied to apostles and members of the church in general and concluded that this is how it was being used here as well.

Chaucer · 12-08-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The fact that scripture describes Jesus as having brothers and sisters is strong evidence against those who think someone with an agenda was writing fiction, at least if the agenda included a mother who was a perpetual virgin.

Excellent point. Thank you, Steve.

Chaucer

Toto · 12-08-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The fact that scripture describes Jesus as having brothers and sisters is strong evidence against those who think someone with an agenda was writing fiction, at least if the agenda included a mother who was a perpetual virgin.

Excellent point. Thank you, Steve.

Chaucer

This is not an excellent point; it is easily refuted. It just shows that the agenda of the gospel writers did not include a perpetually virgin mother.

You do know that the virginity of Mary was a later addition to Mark's story, and perpetual virginity was an even later doctrine?

And you should note that Acharya S has many examples of goddesses who were perpetually "virgin" in spite of giving birth.

jgreen44 · 12-08-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

For example, Marcion's Son of God was not on trial before the Sanhedrin.

Neither was Paul's or Josephus' or Tacitus' Jesus on trial before the Sanhedrin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Marcion's Son of God was not crucified.

Marcion's Son of God did not die.

But didn't Marcion also teach that, before us mere mortals, Jesus appeared to die? IOW, his death was an illusion just as his flesh was an illusion? So Marcion coud have reasoned that Josephus and Tacitus simply recorded the illusion. Therefore, Tertullian did not use these accounts against Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Marcion's Son of God was not resurrected on the third day.

Neither Josephus' Jesus nor Tacitus' Jesus was resurrected on the third day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is Tertullian, "On the Flesh of Christ" 1

Quote:

...Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity...

Marcion believed that Jesus had appeared suddenly as an adult in the 15th year of Tiberius. The accounts of Josephus and Tacitus do not contradict that, because they do not talk about the nativity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In antiquity it was NOT believed a PHANTOM had blood, or human Flesh .

Agreed. But Marcion believed the PHANTOM Jesus presented the illusion of having human flesh.

Chaucer · 12-08-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The game would be up if we had some evidence of a male relative of Jesus, that had not passed through the hands of Christian scribes, as Josephus has.

How do we just "know" that Josephus AND Pliny AND Tacitus AND Suetonius etc., etc., etc. have each passed through not only Christian scribes but scribes each bent on exactly the same distortion and textual corruption (either inadvertently or deliberately)? Moreover, I note that no one here -- not when I first raised it on another thread nor since -- has yet addressed the plain case of an Arabic quote of Josephus pointing to Josephus's having gone through Islamic scribes along with Christian ones. Where's the suspicion of Islamic scribes? Missing in action? Since Josephus plainly went through Islamic scribes as well as Christian ones, any "hegemony" we see here has to factor in Islamic scribes just as much as Christian scribes? Or are Islamic scribes somehow pure as the driven snow?

Chaucer

Toto · 12-08-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The game would be up if we had some evidence of a male relative of Jesus, that had not passed through the hands of Christian scribes, as Josephus has.

How do we just "know" that Josephus AND Pliny AND Tacitus AND Suetonius etc., etc., etc. have each passed through not only Christian scribes but scribes each bent on exactly the same distortion and textual corruption (either inadvertently or deliberately)?

You do know that the only way any ancient manuscripts were preserved in Europe before the invention of the printing press was because Christian monks copied them?

Josephus in particular was a favorite of Christians because they read him as describing God's judgment on the perfidious Jews. [And he is the only one on your list who mentions a male relative of Jesus...]

Quote:

Moreover, I note that no one here -- not when I first raised it on another thread nor since -- has yet addressed the plain case of an Arabic quote of Josephus pointing to Josephus's having gone through Islamic scribes along with Christian ones. Where's the suspicion of Islamic scribes? Missing in action? Since Josephus plainly went through Islamic scribes as well as Christian ones, any "hegemony" we see here has to factor in Islamic scribes just as much as Christian scribes? Or are Islamic scribes somehow pure as the driven snow? ...

The Arabic scribes did not have independent access to Josephus' works, and would have copied from Christian sources well after the references to Jesus were inserted, along with the identification of James as his adelphos. It has been speculated that later Arabic scribes trimmed off the more Christian sounding parts of the TF to make the passage conform to their own view of Jesus as a mere prophet.

Juststeve · 12-08-2010, 12:37 PM

Toto:

Your position is premised on the proposition that passing through Christian hands renders a document unreliable, per se. I'm not sure that's a defensible premise. We all have the right to question the motives of copyists but perhaps its a bit much just to assume mendacity on their part.

Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2010, 12:37 PM	#90
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: Your position is premised on the proposition that passing through Christian hands renders a document unreliable, per se. I'm not sure that's a defensible premise. We all have the right to question the motives of copyists but perhaps its a bit much just to assume mendacity on their part. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.